DLESE Collections Committee

Academic/Career Recognition Task Force Survey.

John C. Butler.

Response Rate.

Received Survey

Accessed Web Page

Responded

Users

~ 1,000

175

74 (43%)

Contributors

~ 200

133

48 (36%)

Chairs

~ 200

90

35 (39%)

Total

~ 1,400

398

157 (39%)

Each of the nearly 1,400 individuals (identified at http://www.uh.edu/~jbutler/anon/artf.html)
received an e-mail message with a brief description of the Digital Library for
Earth System Education and the URL of one of the three survey instruments. Although
some individuals may have accessed the survey web page more than once, it seems
reasonable to judge response as the percentage of those who actually looked
at the survey and returned their responses. Approximately 40% of the accesses
on the survey web pages resulted in a submitted response. Approximately 80%
of the responses arrived within 36 hours after notification. This may be a characteristic
of e-mail surveys. Unless the recipient elects to make a hard copy or a "yellow
sticky", the announcement of opportunity quickly gets buried in the "in box".

Availability of Information.

A detailed summary of each survey and all of the comments submitted are available
upon request (from the ARTF page listed above). I believe that the real value
is in the comments. Although, there are a few interesting generalizations that
can be drawn from the responses.

I believe that DLESE has "kept the faith" with the geosciences/Earth system
sciences communities in that a good faith effort has been made to solicit opinions
and give the community a chance to respond in written form. More than half of
the respondents elected to provide written commentary.

Generalizations.

About 90% of all respondents to all three surveys agreed that there is a need
for some form of peer review process for materials housed in a digital library.
About 75% (of the users and contributors) said that they would consider being
a reviewer of material that might be housed in a digital library. These may
not be surprising and are viewed as a healthy measure of where the community
is coming from.

Users.

The potential users of DLESE are looking for a wide range of topical resources
that have been evaluated by a peer review process. They highly value an assessment
of both accuracy and pedagogical effectiveness. To a lower degree, the potential
users value ease of use and whether the resource is inspirational or motivational.

Contributors.

Most of the contributors (and chairs as well) teach at a university in which
the expectations for research-teaching-service are roughly: 50%-35%-15%.

Slightly less than half of the contributors would encourage their non-tenured
colleagues to devote time to the production of learning resources but slightly
more than half feel that they have been fairly evaluated. Fewer than 33% are
required to submit a teaching portfolio when faced with a mandatory review.
Nearly 90% reported that the lack of time was the first (54%) or second (35%)
biggest obstacle to their efforts in creating resources.

Nearly half reported that accuracy was the highest rated criterion and more
than 80% listed accuracy as one of the three highest rated. Ease of Use ranked
as the second highest rated criterion and nearly 80% ranked this criterion as
one of the three highest rated. Importance and Pedagogical Effectiveness tied
as the third highest highest rated criteria and about 40% mentioned one or the
other as being in the top 3. This is somewhat at odds with the responses of
the Chairs.

Perhaps most of the developers are coming at this (I know that I am) from an
interest in the technology and not from an interest (at least initially) in
learning. This clearly is the case at UH. Can DLESE foster an environment in
which "teams" are created?

86% agreed that they would consider submitting their materials for DLESE review.
77% agreed that they would prepare a "users manual" as part of the review process
and more than 80% agreed that they would allow DLESE to maintain a "pristine
version" of their resource if it was accepted for the collection. This seems
to be a healthy set of indicators of how DLESE is viewed by a group representative
of those who would initially be available to create resources for the collection.

Chairs.

About half of the chairs agree that they encourage their non-tenured colleagues
to develop e-resources for their courses and 88% agree that their colleagues
are fairly evaluated with respect to their teaching efforts.

Nearly 90% reported that the lack of time was the first (68%) or second (22%)
biggest obstacle to their colleagues efforts in creating resources. The other
potential responses received low selection. 40% listed lack of skills as the
second biggest obstacle.

Pedagogical Effectiveness and Accuracy received about 67% of the responses
for the criteria with the greatest impact on chairs. 65% of the respondents
listed Pedagogical Effectiveness as the first or second responses with the greatest
impact. Ease of Use was the third highest.

80% agreed that the would encourage faculty who produced superior resources
to submit them to DLESE for review.